How Did the Time Gem Work in Dormammu's Dimension?

[Note: Speaking only from personal experience with the movies and nearly no experience with the comics whatsoever.]Throughout the Marvel movies, these "Infinity Stones" seem to be named for, and to reflect upon, their nature of being of infinite power and effect.Mathematically speaking, infinity can be conceptualized as the inverse of nullity (nothingness). Formulaically, we describe null as 0 and the inverse of zero would be infinity: 1/0. Since x/0 has no algebraic solution, the De L'Hpital approach would treat the denominator as the width of a differential. Dividing a differential of any size (dx) by a null differential (d0) is essentially equivalent to driving the denominator towards nullity. You cannot really divide by nothing, but we can conceptually speak of what it means to divide by "something" that is approaching a dimensional-metric (a width) of "nothingness". All in all, this is the concept of a Singularity.In our reality, we perceive of a 4-dimensional space-time. Our three spatial dimensions (height, width, and depth) vary along the unidirectional dimension of time; meaning that we only ever seem to go forwards in time. It's like time is a force, like gravity, and our universe is falling under its force, and we can not fight against it to go backwards. But if someone is pushing on you with a force, though you may not be strong enough to push back, that does not mean you can not go around them. If reality, beyond our perception, is hyperdimensional to our 4-D perceptions, then there exist fifth and sixth dimensions and beyond, such that if we could move along those dimensions we could go around time and essentially end up forwards or backwards in time.In this concept of dimensionality, a singularity -- an infinitude -- is a point of convergence, where all (or some) dimensionalities reach their limit. Dimensionality, for perceptual understanding and practical considerations, requires an origin, a limit, and a progression -- meaning that dimensionality must consist of a "metric space". As a measured dimensionality -- a metric space -- there is a nullity and an infinity. All points are measures from the nullity towards the infinity. If we picture our 3-D space as a sphere, the surface of that sphere is the infinity of our space, with the nullity (origin) at the center of the sphere. Infinity in this sense can be positive or negative, and has directionality in relation to the 3 components (call them x, y, and z) of our space. You can be at infinity in one, all three, or some combination of the dimensions, but you always end up on the sphere.In other conceptual constructions of a multi-dimensional space, like a Projective Space (the spherical model is called Euclidean or Cartesian Space), there is only 1 infinity, a singular point of infinity, and the origin is actually a point, disc, sphere, or hypersphere. This is mostly conceptual, but there's a reality to it in the sense of modelling optics and light and abstract dimensional-scaling. In the Projective Space, the point at infinity is a singularity, as all infinities are, and it behaves like a "black hole". You can conceptually map points through the point at infinity, linking positive points to negative points, and the "sign" (negativity or positivity) of a point takes-on a meaning of directionality. By mapping through infinity, you create inversions, you "flip" every direction. So if a body, a collection of points, could pass through the singularity at the point of infinity, it would come out the "other side" inverted -- inside-out and upside-down, in every dimensionality of the space.If we go back to Euclidean space, what happens when hit the surface of the sphere, but then keep travelling? Do you end up moving back towards the origin from where you hit -- did you bounce off the sphere? Or do you move towards the origin from the exact opposite side of the sphere? Which would be similar to Futurama episode (S06E07, "The Late Philip J. Fry"), where they go so far forward in time that they "come out the other side" and "catch up" with where they left off.This is the concept of the "black hole" or the "worm hole". Singularities, points in dimensional space-time, that are connected to other points and allow for "teleportation". More conceptually, the singularity, leading back to the divide-by-zero issue, is a logical fallacy. How can you have a metric space, but be free to teleport from within the metric space? How does that not break all the concepts and reality of the measure(s) between discrete points in the space?!?It does. But what if the space, the 4-dimensions, existed inside of a higher dimensional reality?Now imagine that there is a 13-dimensional reality, and space-time is only 4 of those 13 dimensions. What appears like a singularity, a divide by zero, in our 4-dimensions (ex: , 1, 1, / , 0, 0, ) is only such because it is null in our 4 dimensions but is non-null in other dimensions (ex: , 1, 1, 1, / , 0, 0, 0, w]). We still have a divide-by-zero issue, but going back to (De L'Hpital), that means that it's just beyond our language; we are not really dividing by zero, we are heading towards an inverse nullity, which is really an infinity. But that means we are only heading towards infinity in our dimensions. In other dimensions we could be anywhere. So we might be at infinite time and infinite space points, but what if gravity has a dimensionality, a scale of its strength, we are at the 9.8 point of gravity, so what if we "circumvent" time by going to the -10. 2 point of gravity then come back around to a "previous" point in time?So, an "Infinity Stone", conceptually, seems to exist as a singularity point, a point at infinity, for its dimensionality. The "Time Gem", exists as the singularity for time, but allows free travel -- as the holder is so able to do -- in all other dimensions. Because you can travel freely -- in the limits of your abilities -- in all other dimensions, you can circumvent time. It's like time is a line drawn down the center of a room. If you travel along the line, you can not ever escape it, you are moving only forwards or backwards in time. But you are in a room, a room of many dimensions beyond this line. Imagine jumping over the line, running around the line, falling onto the line... you can go around it however you want, so long as you leave the line. But if you've left the line, where are you "on" the line? How did you "get off of the line"? Leaving the line, leaving "time", you've jumped out of the dimensionality, you've escaped into other dimensionalities, you've gone past the origin and the inverse origin, you've gone through the singularity. You are at "infinity" in time, meaning that you are anywhere except at a point in time; you are not at the beginning or the end, you are beyond. All things that are beyond time are immeasurable and innumerable by time, so they all "exist" at a singularity, at the infinity point "in" time.And so, Dormammu is in a "Dark Dimension" -- this is bad grammar and should be referred to as a "Dark Space" of at least 3-dimensions, because we see at least 3-dimensions during the movie; it's clearly not a single "dimension". The space of Dormammu, the dimensionality seems to have at least our similar 3 spatial dimensions, but as a space "beyond time", that is a grammatically tolerable way of saying that there is no "time dimensionality" to that space. If there's no "time", then things can move, but they are not moving in time, they are moving either purely spatially, thus never changing/evolving temporally but rather becoming new spatial points, being destroyed and recreated as something technically different with every "motion" -- which seems pretty "dark" and f***ked up, right? Or there are other dimensions, like gravity or electromagnetism or things we have no concepts for, or maybe even "Love" is a dimension; right, "Interstellar"?!?Either way, it's a space without a time dimension, that's what it means to be "beyond time". The "time gem" is a singularity of time, an infinity, but that means that it exists in all other possible dimensions, so even if Dormammu's space has no time dimension, Dr. Strange can use the gem to travel "around time" in some other dimensions -- whichever ones he's comfortable traversing through -- and impose a "time loop" on the reality space that Dormammu exists within. Dormammu is stuck because the Time Gem is a worm-hole allowing Dr. Strange to travel through other dimensions, even "beyond" the point-in-time of his death. So when Dormammu kills him, he just returns to the "checkpoint" in time that he registered himself to with the "spell" cast using the Time Gem and the "magical artifact" it's held inside of. Now, this would mean that Dormammu could have saved itself by stealing the Time Gem from Dr. Strange and using it itself to go "around" the time loop; but clearly it did not understand what was happening. And this is the looming threat of collecting all the Infinity Gems into a Gauntlet of Power. If someone ends up with all the Infinity Gems -- Soul, Time, Space, Mind, Reality, and Power -- they have control of 6 singularities among the N total dimensions of all of reality. For each Gem, that means they can freely "escape" that dimension and traverse the others to manipulate "reality" in that Gem's dimensionality. This is probably why it's not a great idea to have a jerk like Dr. Strange walk around with it just hanging on his neck in a super obvious ornate piece of magical jewellery that all but screams "steal me!"

1. I don't really like diamonds can you use a different gem instead of it for an engagement ring?

Absolutely..I do not really care for diamonds either except as accent stones-I wear my husband's birthstone instead because it has far more sentimental meaning for me than a chunk of pressed carbon

2. Why do liberals here on YA think they have discovered some gem of knowledge when they tell me?

Same reason pubtards tell me that I really am a Weasel. Yes, that's right.......I am a little furry creature banging away on a keyboard.

3. More Impressive: A "sloppy" No-Hitter or a 1-hit gem?

Brandon Morrow, just having 17 K's in a game is impressive enough

บทความที่แนะนำ
What Statistical Tests Can Be Used to Check for Lexicalisation Effects in a Judgement Task?
Likert scales are usually analysed with the Mann-Whitney U test or a Chi square test. T-tests are fine if the test assumptions are met, but they are not always (which is why people use the MWU which has different assumptions regarding normal distribution of means).In your case it seems like it might be difficult to establish this, so I'd go with the MWU (if you can establish them though, you should feel free to use a t-test). The test can show that it is likely that the two groups (e.g. transitive and intransitive) behave differently and it may exclude to a degree that this difference is due to chance. No test can however show that they are in fact different though, and more importantly that the underlying cognitive division you may assume is indeed the driver of that difference. Convincing yourself and your reader of those things is ultimately up to your arguments for the experimental choices and interpretations you make.In a run-of-the-mill judgement rating task where participants have to rate sentences on a Likert scale (e.g. 1 to 6) and that is constructed using a Latin square design, what statistical tests can be used to check for lexicalisation effects and which is the most commonly used?Update:By lexicalisation, I mean checking the different realisations of each condition. So if there's a variable 'transitivity' giving two conditions, i.e. transitive and intransitive, I want to test whether any of the choices of transitive verbs behave in a different way to the other choices of verbs in that condition. Can it be shown just using t-tests?·OTHER ANSWER:In a run-of-the-mill judgement rating task where participants have to rate sentences on a Likert scale (e.g. 1 to 6) and that is constructed using a Latin square design, what statistical tests can be used to check for lexicalisation effects and which is the most commonly used?Update:By lexicalisation, I mean checking the different realisations of each condition. So if there's a variable 'transitivity' giving two conditions, i.e. transitive and intransitive, I want to test whether any of the choices of transitive verbs behave in a different way to the other choices of verbs in that condition. Can it be shown just using t-tests?
What Is the Charm of the Respected "cloud" Parking Management System - Tigerwong Technology
What Gemstone Do You Prefer?
Is There More to Heart Disease Management Than Taking Medicine, Eating Healthy and Exercising?
Blue Chips: a Basketball Gem
Should I Go with a Colorless Diamond, Colored Diamond, Or Colored Gemstone for My Engagement & Weddi
What's the Use of Color Management System in Smart Phones?
What Is the Best Way to Pan Fry Largemouth Bass?
Hilton College of Hotel and Restaurant Management
About Engagement Rings, Selecting and Other Questions?
related searches
Blue Chips: a Basketball Gem
In Skyrim How Much Magika Is Required to Fill a Black Soul Gem?
Unable to Use Sensu-install on Windows - Gem & Ruby Bin Not in System Path [closed]
Does a Cobra Create a Gem Like Thing in Its Life Span Or Do Any Other Species of Snake Can Produce a
What Gemstone Do You Prefer?
Should I Go with a Colorless Diamond, Colored Diamond, Or Colored Gemstone for My Engagement & Weddi
What Is the Best Way to Pan Fry Largemouth Bass?
The History of Wedding Rings Dating Back 5,000 Years
What Is Your Opinion on Cheap Engagement Rings?